Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 851

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 421

p-value2

age

85

50.51 ± 13.04 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)

50.74 ± 12.94 (28 - 73)

0.873

gender

85

0.519

f

60 (71%)

29 (67%)

31 (74%)

m

25 (29%)

14 (33%)

11 (26%)

occupation

85

0.894

day_training

2 (2.4%)

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

full_time

9 (11%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.5%)

homemaker

6 (7.1%)

3 (7.0%)

3 (7.1%)

other

2 (2.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.8%)

part_time

15 (18%)

7 (16%)

8 (19%)

retired

21 (25%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (4.8%)

student

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

t_and_e

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

unemploy

23 (27%)

13 (30%)

10 (24%)

marital

85

0.692

cohabitation

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

divore

10 (12%)

7 (16%)

3 (7.1%)

in_relationship

1 (1.2%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

21 (25%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

none

46 (54%)

22 (51%)

24 (57%)

seperation

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.4%)

widow

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.8%)

edu

85

0.843

bachelor

24 (28%)

9 (21%)

15 (36%)

diploma

18 (21%)

11 (26%)

7 (17%)

hd_ad

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.4%)

postgraduate

7 (8.2%)

4 (9.3%)

3 (7.1%)

primary

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

secondary_1_3

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (9.5%)

secondary_4_5

16 (19%)

8 (19%)

8 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

fam_income

85

0.908

10001_12000

4 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (7.1%)

12001_14000

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

14001_16000

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

16001_18000

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

18001_20000

4 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

1 (2.4%)

20001_above

14 (16%)

7 (16%)

7 (17%)

2001_4000

13 (15%)

9 (21%)

4 (9.5%)

4001_6000

10 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (14%)

6001_8000

9 (11%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.5%)

8001_10000

7 (8.2%)

3 (7.0%)

4 (9.5%)

below_2000

12 (14%)

6 (14%)

6 (14%)

medication

85

75 (88%)

39 (91%)

36 (86%)

0.520

onset_duration

85

15.28 ± 10.96 (0 - 56)

16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)

13.88 ± 9.66 (0 - 35)

0.246

onset_age

85

35.23 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)

33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)

36.86 ± 15.13 (15 - 64)

0.291

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 851

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 421

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

85

3.08 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

0.934

recovery_stage_b

85

18.01 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)

18.17 ± 2.55 (13 - 23)

0.597

ras_confidence

85

30.19 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)

29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)

30.76 ± 5.17 (20 - 43)

0.274

ras_willingness

85

12.24 ± 1.95 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.40 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)

0.432

ras_goal

85

17.60 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)

17.71 ± 2.94 (12 - 24)

0.718

ras_reliance

85

13.06 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.14 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)

0.786

ras_domination

85

9.93 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)

9.43 ± 2.33 (3 - 14)

0.050

symptom

85

30.42 ± 9.81 (14 - 56)

31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)

28.86 ± 9.57 (15 - 56)

0.147

slof_work

85

22.84 ± 4.88 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)

23.14 ± 5.31 (10 - 30)

0.569

slof_relationship

85

25.82 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)

26.55 ± 5.87 (11 - 35)

0.268

satisfaction

85

20.53 ± 6.71 (5 - 32)

18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)

22.24 ± 6.57 (5 - 32)

0.019

mhc_emotional

85

11.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)

11.74 ± 4.03 (4 - 18)

0.195

mhc_social

85

15.04 ± 5.26 (6 - 30)

15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)

14.93 ± 5.33 (6 - 26)

0.855

mhc_psychological

85

22.15 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)

21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.76 ± 6.34 (6 - 36)

0.349

resilisnce

85

16.67 ± 4.49 (6 - 27)

16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.07 ± 4.83 (7 - 27)

0.420

social_provision

85

13.71 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.17 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.143

els_value_living

85

17.13 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)

16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.76 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.047

els_life_fulfill

85

12.66 ± 3.29 (4 - 20)

11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.81 ± 3.16 (4 - 20)

0.001

els

85

29.79 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)

28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)

31.57 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

0.003

social_connect

85

26.91 ± 9.22 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)

25.95 ± 10.14 (8 - 48)

0.349

shs_agency

85

14.58 ± 4.77 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

15.43 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)

0.104

shs_pathway

85

16.56 ± 3.90 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)

17.12 ± 4.06 (4 - 23)

0.197

shs

85

31.14 ± 8.21 (7 - 47)

29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)

32.55 ± 8.59 (7 - 47)

0.119

esteem

85

12.69 ± 1.53 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.45 ± 1.45 (10 - 16)

0.150

mlq_search

85

15.01 ± 3.25 (3 - 21)

14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.46 (3 - 21)

0.667

mlq_presence

85

13.54 ± 4.10 (3 - 21)

13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.76 ± 4.53 (3 - 21)

0.627

mlq

85

28.55 ± 6.53 (6 - 42)

28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)

28.93 ± 7.21 (6 - 42)

0.603

empower

85

19.47 ± 4.05 (6 - 28)

18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.54 (6 - 28)

0.236

ismi_resistance

85

14.78 ± 2.61 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)

15.14 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

0.202

ismi_discrimation

85

11.46 ± 3.14 (5 - 19)

12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)

10.48 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

0.004

sss_affective

85

10.04 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.50 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

0.195

sss_behavior

85

9.67 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.93 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

0.089

sss_cognitive

85

8.24 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

7.81 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)

0.308

sss

85

27.94 ± 10.68 (9 - 54)

29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

26.24 ± 10.72 (9 - 54)

0.147

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.181

2.74, 3.45

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.022

0.258

-0.527, 0.484

0.933

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.174

0.280

-0.375, 0.722

0.537

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.182

0.396

-0.595, 0.959

0.647

Pseudo R square

0.012

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.409

17.1, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.306

0.582

-0.835, 1.45

0.600

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.339

0.593

-1.50, 0.824

0.570

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.779

0.839

-0.866, 2.42

0.357

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.755

28.1, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.13

1.074

-0.971, 3.24

0.294

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.392

0.805

-1.19, 1.97

0.628

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.383

1.139

-1.85, 2.61

0.738

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.304

11.5, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.335

0.432

-0.512, 1.18

0.440

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.674

0.317

-1.29, -0.053

0.039

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.559

0.448

-0.319, 1.44

0.219

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.460

16.6, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.226

0.654

-1.06, 1.51

0.730

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.917

0.540

-1.97, 0.141

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.59

0.764

0.097, 3.09

0.042

Pseudo R square

0.030

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.418

12.2, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.166

0.595

-0.999, 1.33

0.781

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.452

0.407

-0.344, 1.25

0.272

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.590

0.575

-0.537, 1.72

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.346

9.74, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.990

0.493

-1.96, -0.024

0.047

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.592

0.465

-1.50, 0.320

0.210

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.659

0.184, 2.77

0.030

Pseudo R square

0.036

symptom

(Intercept)

32.0

1.484

29.0, 34.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.10

2.111

-7.23, 1.04

0.146

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.043

1.164

-2.32, 2.24

0.971

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.565

1.647

-3.79, 2.66

0.733

Pseudo R square

0.028

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.748

21.1, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.608

1.064

-1.48, 2.69

0.569

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.698

0.619

-1.91, 0.515

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.510

0.875

-2.22, 1.21

0.564

Pseudo R square

0.011

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.892

23.4, 26.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.43

1.269

-1.05, 3.92

0.262

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.947

0.888

-2.69, 0.793

0.292

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.526

1.256

-1.94, 2.99

0.678

Pseudo R square

0.022

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.9

1.030

16.8, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.38

1.465

0.506, 6.25

0.023

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.865

1.153

-1.39, 3.12

0.457

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.37

1.631

-4.57, 1.83

0.405

Pseudo R square

0.048

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.569

9.56, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.06

0.810

-0.523, 2.65

0.192

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.491

0.530

-0.547, 1.53

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

0.749

-2.68, 0.262

0.115

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.832

13.5, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.211

1.184

-2.53, 2.11

0.859

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.09

0.882

-0.640, 2.82

0.224

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.66

1.248

-4.11, 0.784

0.190

Pseudo R square

0.010

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.939

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.20

1.336

-1.42, 3.82

0.370

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.698

1.009

-1.28, 2.68

0.493

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.56

1.428

-4.36, 1.24

0.281

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.659

15.0, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.792

0.937

-1.04, 2.63

0.400

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.178

0.721

-1.23, 1.59

0.806

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.510

1.020

-1.49, 2.51

0.619

Pseudo R square

0.015

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.444

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.911

0.632

-0.327, 2.15

0.152

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.919

0.539

-1.98, 0.138

0.094

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.824

0.763

-0.671, 2.32

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.049

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.441

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.25

0.628

0.020, 2.48

0.049

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.312

0.450

-0.571, 1.19

0.492

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.082

0.637

-1.33, 1.17

0.898

Pseudo R square

0.045

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.462

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

0.657

0.987, 3.56

0.001

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.992

0.478

0.056, 1.93

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.00

0.676

-2.33, 0.320

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.105

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.813

26.5, 29.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.52

1.157

1.26, 5.79

0.003

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.26

0.762

-0.237, 2.75

0.106

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.03

1.078

-3.14, 1.09

0.346

Pseudo R square

0.089

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.409

25.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.88

2.004

-5.81, 2.04

0.350

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

1.145

-1.48, 3.01

0.507

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.24

1.620

-4.42, 1.94

0.448

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.725

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.68

1.032

-0.338, 3.71

0.106

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.316

0.764

-1.18, 1.81

0.681

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

1.080

-1.96, 2.28

0.883

Pseudo R square

0.034

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.593

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.10

0.844

-0.558, 2.75

0.197

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.394

0.593

-0.768, 1.56

0.510

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.637

0.838

-2.28, 1.01

0.452

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.240

27.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.78

1.764

-0.677, 6.24

0.118

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.707

1.234

-1.71, 3.13

0.569

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.455

1.745

-3.88, 2.97

0.795

Pseudo R square

0.027

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.218

12.5, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.478

0.310

-1.09, 0.130

0.126

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.106

0.348

-0.577, 0.789

0.763

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.195

0.493

-0.772, 1.16

0.695

Pseudo R square

0.026

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.504

13.9, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.306

0.716

-1.10, 1.71

0.670

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.403

0.646

-1.67, 0.864

0.536

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.259

0.915

-1.53, 2.05

0.778

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.615

12.1, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.436

0.874

-1.28, 2.15

0.619

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.052

0.728

-1.48, 1.38

0.943

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.037

1.030

-2.06, 1.98

0.971

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.010

26.2, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.743

1.437

-2.07, 3.56

0.607

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.450

1.234

-2.87, 1.97

0.717

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.210

1.746

-3.21, 3.63

0.905

Pseudo R square

0.004

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.603

17.8, 20.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.858

-0.634, 2.73

0.225

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.224

0.571

-1.34, 0.895

0.697

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.426

0.808

-2.01, 1.16

0.600

Pseudo R square

0.016

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.377

13.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.724

0.536

-0.326, 1.77

0.179

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.123

0.537

-0.930, 1.18

0.820

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.363

0.760

-1.85, 1.13

0.635

Pseudo R square

0.016

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.469

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.94

0.667

-3.25, -0.635

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.586

0.530

-1.62, 0.453

0.274

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.694

0.750

-0.776, 2.16

0.359

Pseudo R square

0.077

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.553

9.47, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.06

0.786

-2.60, 0.483

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.194

0.506

-0.798, 1.19

0.704

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

0.716

-2.60, 0.207

0.102

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.578

9.26, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.47

0.822

-3.08, 0.145

0.078

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.285

0.617

-1.49, 0.925

0.647

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.566

0.873

-2.28, 1.14

0.520

Pseudo R square

0.051

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.568

7.54, 9.76

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.842

0.807

-2.42, 0.741

0.300

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.993

0.509

-0.004, 1.99

0.057

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.92

0.720

-3.33, -0.505

0.011

Pseudo R square

0.050

sss

(Intercept)

29.6

1.578

26.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.37

2.245

-7.77, 1.03

0.137

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.999

1.319

-1.59, 3.58

0.453

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.74

1.866

-7.40, -0.083

0.051

Pseudo R square

0.055

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(119) = 17.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48], t(119) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.72], t(119) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.96], t(119) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.06, 18.66], t(119) = 43.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.45], t(119) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.82], t(119) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.42], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.91])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.11], t(119) = 39.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.97, 3.24], t(119) = 1.06, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.97], t(119) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.61], t(119) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.66], t(119) = 39.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(119) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.05], t(119) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.44], t(119) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.59, 18.39], t(119) = 38.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.51], t(119) = 0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.14], t(119) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [0.10, 3.09], t(119) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.03, 1.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(119) = 31.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(119) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.25], t(119) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.72], t(119) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(119) = 30.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.96, -0.02], t(119) = -2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.32], t(119) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [0.18, 2.77], t(119) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.08, 1.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(119) = 21.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.10, 95% CI [-7.23, 1.04], t(119) = -1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.32, 2.24], t(119) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -4.32e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-3.79, 2.66], t(119) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(119) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.69], t(119) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(119) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.21], t(119) = -0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.37, 26.86], t(119) = 28.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.92], t(119) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-2.69, 0.79], t(119) = -1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.99], t(119) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.84, 20.88], t(119) = 18.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [0.51, 6.25], t(119) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.39, 3.12], t(119) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.57, 1.83], t(119) = -0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(119) = 18.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.65], t(119) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.26], t(119) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.51, 16.77], t(119) = 18.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.11], t(119) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.82], t(119) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.11, 0.78], t(119) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.72, 23.40], t(119) = 22.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.82], t(119) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.68], t(119) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.36, 1.24], t(119) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.99, 17.57], t(119) = 24.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.63], t(119) = 0.85, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(119) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.51], t(119) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.13], t(119) = 29.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.15], t(119) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-1.98, 0.14], t(119) = -1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.32], t(119) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.65, 17.38], t(119) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [0.02, 2.48], t(119) = 1.99, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [6.65e-03, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.19], t(119) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.17], t(119) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.63, 12.44], t(119) = 24.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.99, 3.56], t(119) = 3.46, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [0.31, 1.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.06, 1.93], t(119) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.32], t(119) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.45, 29.64], t(119) = 34.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.26, 5.79], t(119) = 3.05, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.23, 1.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.75], t(119) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.14, 1.09], t(119) = -0.95, p = 0.341; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.08, 30.60], t(119) = 19.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-5.81, 2.04], t(119) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.01], t(119) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-4.42, 1.94], t(119) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.32, 15.17], t(119) = 18.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.71], t(119) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.81], t(119) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.28], t(119) = 0.15, p = 0.883; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.86, 17.19], t(119) = 27.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.75], t(119) = 1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.56], t(119) = 0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.01], t(119) = -0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.34, 32.20], t(119) = 24.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.78, 95% CI [-0.68, 6.24], t(119) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.71, 3.13], t(119) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.97], t(119) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.50, 13.36], t(119) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.13], t(119) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.79], t(119) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.56])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.16], t(119) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.87, 15.85], t(119) = 29.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.71], t(119) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.67, 0.86], t(119) = -0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.05], t(119) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.12, 14.53], t(119) = 21.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.15], t(119) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.38], t(119) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.98], t(119) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -9.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.17], t(119) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.56], t(119) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.87, 1.97], t(119) = -0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.63], t(119) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.77, 20.13], t(119) = 31.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.73], t(119) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.90], t(119) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.16], t(119) = -0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.68, 15.16], t(119) = 38.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.77], t(119) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.18], t(119) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.13], t(119) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(119) = 26.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.63], t(119) = -2.91, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.45], t(119) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.16], t(119) = 0.93, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.47, 11.64], t(119) = 19.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.48], t(119) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.19], t(119) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.21], t(119) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(119) = 17.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.14], t(119) = -1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.92], t(119) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.14], t(119) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.76], t(119) = 15.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.74], t(119) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-3.83e-03, 1.99], t(119) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.02e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-3.33, -0.51], t(119) = -2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.51, 32.70], t(119) = 18.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.77, 1.03], t(119) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.58], t(119) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.74, 95% CI [-7.40, -0.08], t(119) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.70, -7.85e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

397.635

406.120

-195.818

391.635

recovery_stage_a

random

6

401.620

418.590

-194.810

389.620

2.015

3

0.569

recovery_stage_b

null

3

597.482

605.966

-295.741

591.482

recovery_stage_b

random

6

601.600

618.570

-294.800

589.600

1.881

3

0.597

ras_confidence

null

3

730.714

739.199

-362.357

724.714

ras_confidence

random

6

734.065

751.035

-361.033

722.065

2.648

3

0.449

ras_willingness

null

3

504.591

513.076

-249.295

498.591

ras_willingness

random

6

504.712

521.682

-246.356

492.712

5.879

3

0.118

ras_goal

null

3

616.381

624.866

-305.191

610.381

ras_goal

random

6

616.836

633.806

-302.418

604.836

5.545

3

0.136

ras_reliance

null

3

581.537

590.022

-287.768

575.537

ras_reliance

random

6

579.490

596.460

-283.745

567.490

8.047

3

0.045

ras_domination

null

3

556.091

564.576

-275.045

550.091

ras_domination

random

6

555.305

572.275

-271.652

543.305

6.786

3

0.079

symptom

null

3

876.710

885.195

-435.355

870.710

symptom

random

6

879.938

896.908

-433.969

867.938

2.773

3

0.428

slof_work

null

3

711.974

720.459

-352.987

705.974

slof_work

random

6

712.730

729.700

-350.365

700.730

5.245

3

0.155

slof_relationship

null

3

767.683

776.168

-380.842

761.683

slof_relationship

random

6

770.653

787.623

-379.326

758.653

3.030

3

0.387

satisfaction

null

3

814.587

823.072

-404.293

808.587

satisfaction

random

6

815.168

832.138

-401.584

803.168

5.419

3

0.144

mhc_emotional

null

3

651.033

659.518

-322.517

645.033

mhc_emotional

random

6

653.353

670.323

-320.677

641.353

3.680

3

0.298

mhc_social

null

3

754.327

762.812

-374.164

748.327

mhc_social

random

6

758.024

774.993

-373.012

746.024

2.303

3

0.512

mhc_psychological

null

3

784.888

793.373

-389.444

778.888

mhc_psychological

random

6

789.245

806.215

-388.622

777.245

1.643

3

0.650

resilisnce

null

3

697.849

706.334

-345.925

691.849

resilisnce

random

6

701.767

718.737

-344.884

689.767

2.082

3

0.556

social_provision

null

3

611.025

619.510

-302.512

605.025

social_provision

random

6

610.538

627.508

-299.269

598.538

6.487

3

0.090

els_value_living

null

3

595.536

604.021

-294.768

589.536

els_value_living

random

6

596.633

613.603

-292.316

584.633

4.903

3

0.179

els_life_fulfill

null

3

616.976

625.460

-305.488

610.976

els_life_fulfill

random

6

608.913

625.883

-298.456

596.913

14.063

3

0.003

els

null

3

748.171

756.656

-371.085

742.171

els

random

6

743.091

760.060

-365.545

731.091

11.080

3

0.011

social_connect

null

3

865.660

874.145

-429.830

859.660

social_connect

random

6

869.751

886.721

-428.875

857.751

1.910

3

0.591

shs_agency

null

3

720.771

729.256

-357.385

714.771

shs_agency

random

6

723.141

740.111

-355.570

711.141

3.630

3

0.304

shs_pathway

null

3

664.930

673.415

-329.465

658.930

shs_pathway

random

6

668.961

685.931

-328.481

656.961

1.969

3

0.579

shs

null

3

849.863

858.348

-421.932

843.863

shs

random

6

853.009

869.979

-420.504

841.009

2.854

3

0.415

esteem

null

3

446.537

455.022

-220.268

440.537

esteem

random

6

449.315

466.285

-218.658

437.315

3.221

3

0.359

mlq_search

null

3

640.601

649.086

-317.301

634.601

mlq_search

random

6

645.830

662.800

-316.915

633.830

0.771

3

0.856

mlq_presence

null

3

684.448

692.932

-339.224

678.448

mlq_presence

random

6

690.155

707.125

-339.077

678.155

0.293

3

0.961

mlq

null

3

811.066

819.551

-402.533

805.066

mlq

random

6

816.535

833.505

-402.268

804.535

0.531

3

0.912

empower

null

3

665.811

674.296

-329.906

659.811

empower

random

6

669.033

686.003

-328.517

657.033

2.778

3

0.427

ismi_resistance

null

3

575.795

584.280

-284.898

569.795

ismi_resistance

random

6

579.901

596.870

-283.950

567.901

1.895

3

0.595

ismi_discrimation

null

3

621.990

630.475

-307.995

615.990

ismi_discrimation

random

6

619.205

636.175

-303.602

607.205

8.785

3

0.032

sss_affective

null

3

646.086

654.571

-320.043

640.086

sss_affective

random

6

644.841

661.811

-316.421

632.841

7.245

3

0.064

sss_behavior

null

3

667.673

676.158

-330.836

661.673

sss_behavior

random

6

667.367

684.337

-327.683

655.367

6.306

3

0.098

sss_cognitive

null

3

653.258

661.743

-323.629

647.258

sss_cognitive

random

6

649.851

666.821

-318.925

637.851

9.407

3

0.024

sss

null

3

902.846

911.331

-448.423

896.846

sss

random

6

900.187

917.157

-444.094

888.187

8.659

3

0.034

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

43

3.09 ± 1.19

42

3.07 ± 1.19

0.933

0.022

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.17

-0.178

20

3.43 ± 1.17

-0.364

0.665

-0.164

recovery_stage_b

1st

43

17.86 ± 2.68

42

18.17 ± 2.68

0.600

-0.150

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.52 ± 2.58

0.166

20

18.61 ± 2.58

-0.216

0.186

-0.532

ras_confidence

1st

43

29.63 ± 4.95

42

30.76 ± 4.95

0.294

-0.428

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.02 ± 4.24

-0.148

20

31.54 ± 4.26

-0.293

0.261

-0.573

ras_willingness

1st

43

12.07 ± 1.99

42

12.40 ± 1.99

0.440

-0.322

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.40 ± 1.69

0.648

20

12.29 ± 1.70

0.111

0.098

-0.859

ras_goal

1st

43

17.49 ± 3.01

42

17.71 ± 3.01

0.730

-0.126

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.57 ± 2.67

0.511

20

18.39 ± 2.68

-0.378

0.033

-1.015

ras_reliance

1st

43

12.98 ± 2.74

42

13.14 ± 2.74

0.781

-0.125

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.28

-0.341

20

14.19 ± 2.29

-0.785

0.297

-0.569

ras_domination

1st

43

10.42 ± 2.27

42

9.43 ± 2.27

0.047

0.628

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.83 ± 2.12

0.375

20

10.31 ± 2.12

-0.560

0.471

-0.307

symptom

1st

43

31.95 ± 9.73

42

28.86 ± 9.73

0.146

0.824

symptom

2nd

20

31.91 ± 7.63

0.011

20

28.25 ± 7.68

0.162

0.133

0.975

slof_work

1st

43

22.53 ± 4.90

42

23.14 ± 4.90

0.569

-0.304

slof_work

2nd

20

21.84 ± 3.89

0.349

20

21.94 ± 3.92

0.603

0.937

-0.049

slof_relationship

1st

43

25.12 ± 5.85

42

26.55 ± 5.85

0.262

-0.493

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.17 ± 4.90

0.326

20

26.13 ± 4.92

0.145

0.210

-0.674

satisfaction

1st

43

18.86 ± 6.75

42

22.24 ± 6.75

0.023

-0.886

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.73 ± 5.88

-0.227

20

21.73 ± 5.90

0.133

0.283

-0.527

mhc_emotional

1st

43

10.67 ± 3.73

42

11.74 ± 3.73

0.192

-0.617

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.17 ± 3.06

-0.285

20

11.02 ± 3.08

0.415

0.883

0.083

mhc_social

1st

43

15.14 ± 5.46

42

14.93 ± 5.46

0.859

0.073

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.23 ± 4.66

-0.375

20

14.36 ± 4.68

0.198

0.207

0.646

mhc_psychological

1st

43

21.56 ± 6.16

42

22.76 ± 6.16

0.370

-0.362

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.26 ± 5.29

-0.210

20

21.90 ± 5.31

0.259

0.833

0.106

resilisnce

1st

43

16.28 ± 4.32

42

17.07 ± 4.32

0.400

-0.333

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.46 ± 3.73

-0.075

20

17.76 ± 3.74

-0.289

0.273

-0.548

social_provision

1st

43

13.26 ± 2.91

42

14.17 ± 2.91

0.152

-0.506

social_provision

2nd

20

12.34 ± 2.61

0.511

20

14.07 ± 2.62

0.053

0.038

-0.964

els_value_living

1st

43

16.51 ± 2.89

42

17.76 ± 2.89

0.049

-0.847

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.82 ± 2.44

-0.211

20

17.99 ± 2.45

-0.156

0.134

-0.791

els_life_fulfill

1st

43

11.53 ± 3.03

42

13.81 ± 3.03

0.001

-1.451

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.53 ± 2.57

-0.633

20

13.80 ± 2.58

0.008

0.121

-0.811

els

1st

43

28.05 ± 5.33

42

31.57 ± 5.33

0.003

-1.419

els

2nd

20

29.30 ± 4.38

-0.506

20

31.80 ± 4.40

-0.093

0.075

-1.006

social_connect

1st

43

27.84 ± 9.24

42

25.95 ± 9.24

0.350

0.509

social_connect

2nd

20

28.60 ± 7.30

-0.207

20

25.48 ± 7.35

0.128

0.180

0.844

shs_agency

1st

43

13.74 ± 4.76

42

15.43 ± 4.76

0.106

-0.671

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.06 ± 4.06

-0.126

20

15.90 ± 4.07

-0.189

0.154

-0.735

shs_pathway

1st

43

16.02 ± 3.89

42

17.12 ± 3.89

0.197

-0.565

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.42 ± 3.26

-0.203

20

16.88 ± 3.27

0.125

0.657

-0.237

shs

1st

43

29.77 ± 8.13

42

32.55 ± 8.13

0.118

-0.689

shs

2nd

20

30.47 ± 6.81

-0.175

20

32.80 ± 6.84

-0.062

0.283

-0.576

esteem

1st

43

12.93 ± 1.43

42

12.45 ± 1.43

0.126

0.388

esteem

2nd

20

13.04 ± 1.42

-0.086

20

12.75 ± 1.42

-0.244

0.530

0.230

mlq_search

1st

43

14.86 ± 3.30

42

15.17 ± 3.30

0.670

-0.141

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.46 ± 3.03

0.185

20

15.02 ± 3.03

0.066

0.556

-0.260

mlq_presence

1st

43

13.33 ± 4.03

42

13.76 ± 4.03

0.619

-0.180

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.27 ± 3.58

0.021

20

13.67 ± 3.59

0.037

0.726

-0.165

mlq

1st

43

28.19 ± 6.63

42

28.93 ± 6.63

0.607

-0.180

mlq

2nd

20

27.74 ± 5.96

0.109

20

28.69 ± 5.97

0.058

0.614

-0.231

empower

1st

43

18.95 ± 3.95

42

20.00 ± 3.95

0.225

-0.562

empower

2nd

20

18.73 ± 3.26

0.120

20

19.35 ± 3.27

0.349

0.549

-0.333

ismi_resistance

1st

43

14.42 ± 2.47

42

15.14 ± 2.47

0.179

-0.393

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.54 ± 2.36

-0.067

20

14.90 ± 2.36

0.131

0.629

-0.196

ismi_discrimation

1st

43

12.42 ± 3.08

42

10.48 ± 3.08

0.004

1.107

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.83 ± 2.69

0.334

20

10.58 ± 2.70

-0.061

0.145

0.712

sss_affective

1st

43

10.56 ± 3.62

42

9.50 ± 3.62

0.182

0.643

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.75 ± 2.96

-0.118

20

8.50 ± 2.97

0.609

0.018

1.369

sss_behavior

1st

43

10.40 ± 3.79

42

8.93 ± 3.79

0.078

0.722

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.11 ± 3.25

0.140

20

8.08 ± 3.26

0.419

0.050

1.001

sss_cognitive

1st

43

8.65 ± 3.72

42

7.81 ± 3.72

0.300

0.509

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.64 ± 3.02

-0.601

20

6.89 ± 3.04

0.558

0.005

1.668

sss

1st

43

29.60 ± 10.35

42

26.24 ± 10.35

0.137

0.788

sss

2nd

20

30.60 ± 8.24

-0.234

20

23.50 ± 8.29

0.642

0.007

1.665

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(113.79) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.49)

2st

t(118.32) = 0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(109.48) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.46)

2st

t(117.54) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.70)

ras_confidence

1st

t(95.35) = 1.06, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.00 to 3.27)

2st

t(120.43) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.14 to 4.18)

ras_willingness

1st

t(94.71) = 0.78, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)

2st

t(120.65) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.96)

ras_goal

1st

t(98.64) = 0.35, p = 0.730, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.52)

2st

t(119.16) = 2.15, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.49)

ras_reliance

1st

t(92.93) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.35)

2st

t(120.99) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.19)

ras_domination

1st

t(104.92) = -2.01, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-1.97 to -0.01)

2st

t(117.55) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.81)

symptom

1st

t(89.08) = -1.47, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.10)

2st

t(118.44) = -1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-8.45 to 1.13)

slof_work

1st

t(89.85) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.72)

2st

t(119.57) = 0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.54)

slof_relationship

1st

t(93.50) = 1.13, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.95)

2st

t(120.94) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.03)

satisfaction

1st

t(96.90) = 2.31, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.47 to 6.29)

2st

t(119.84) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.68 to 5.70)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(91.96) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.67)

2st

t(120.93) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.06 to 1.78)

mhc_social

1st

t(95.18) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.14)

2st

t(120.49) = -1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-4.80 to 1.05)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(95.57) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.86)

2st

t(120.35) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.96)

resilisnce

1st

t(96.15) = 0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.65)

2st

t(120.14) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.64)

social_provision

1st

t(99.99) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.16)

2st

t(118.67) = 2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.37)

els_value_living

1st

t(94.12) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.50)

2st

t(120.81) = 1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.70)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(94.48) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (0.97 to 3.58)

2st

t(120.71) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.88)

els

1st

t(92.12) = 3.05, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.42, 95% CI (1.23 to 5.82)

2st

t(120.96) = 1.80, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.25 to 5.25)

social_connect

1st

t(89.58) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-5.87 to 2.10)

2st

t(119.22) = -1.35, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-7.71 to 1.46)

shs_agency

1st

t(94.97) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.73)

2st

t(120.56) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.70 to 4.39)

shs_pathway

1st

t(93.58) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.77)

2st

t(120.92) = 0.44, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.50)

shs

1st

t(93.48) = 1.58, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.72 to 6.28)

2st

t(120.94) = 1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.95 to 6.59)

esteem

1st

t(116.18) = -1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.14)

2st

t(119.04) = -0.63, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.61)

mlq_search

1st

t(102.53) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.73)

2st

t(117.95) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.46)

mlq_presence

1st

t(98.99) = 0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.17)

2st

t(119.03) = 0.35, p = 0.726, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 2.65)

mlq

1st

t(100.22) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.59)

2st

t(118.59) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.69)

empower

1st

t(92.33) = 1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.75)

2st

t(120.98) = 0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.67)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(108.46) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.79)

2st

t(117.46) = 0.48, p = 0.629, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.84)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(97.23) = -2.91, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.62)

2st

t(119.71) = -1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st

t(91.63) = -1.35, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.50)

2st

t(120.84) = -2.40, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.37, 95% CI (-4.11 to -0.40)

sss_behavior

1st

t(95.40) = -1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.10 to 0.17)

2st

t(120.42) = -1.98, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-4.07 to 0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(91.22) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.76)

2st

t(120.68) = -2.88, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.67, 95% CI (-4.65 to -0.86)

sss

1st

t(90.01) = -1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.83 to 1.09)

2st

t(119.76) = -2.72, p = 0.007, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-12.28 to -1.93)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(58.46) = 1.26, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(54.52) = 0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.64)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(44.83) = 0.96, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(44.46) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.53)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(46.84) = 1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.77)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(43.42) = 2.55, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.87)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(51.02) = 1.88, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.83)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(41.26) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.97 to 1.75)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.68) = -1.94, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.05)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(43.75) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.38)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(45.76) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.84 to 1.83)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.87) = -1.34, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(44.73) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.36 to 1.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(44.97) = -0.85, p = 0.803, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.19)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(45.31) = 0.95, p = 0.696, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.15)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(47.70) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.00)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(44.33) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(42.96) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.77)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(41.54) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-2.79 to 1.85)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(44.61) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.02)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(43.80) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.96)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(43.74) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.25 to 2.75)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(61.15) = 0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.01)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(49.36) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.17)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(47.06) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.39)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(47.84) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.74 to 2.26)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(43.08) = -1.13, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(53.69) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.85)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(45.97) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.18)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(42.68) = -1.97, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(44.87) = -1.37, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.10 to 0.40)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(42.45) = -1.81, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.78) = -2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.41 to -0.07)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(58.99) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(54.94) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(44.99) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(44.61) = -2.12, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.03)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(47.05) = -1.69, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.18)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(43.55) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = -1.26, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.35)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(41.34) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.31)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(41.77) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(43.88) = -1.06, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.75 to 0.85)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(45.95) = 0.75, p = 0.919, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.47 to 3.20)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(42.98) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.56)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(44.89) = 1.23, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(45.13) = 0.69, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.74)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(45.49) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(47.93) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.17)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(44.25) = 0.69, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(44.47) = 2.07, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.96)

els

1st vs 2st

t(43.07) = 1.64, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.80)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(41.62) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.55 to 3.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(44.77) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(43.93) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.59)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(43.87) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.21)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(61.76) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.81)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(49.64) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.91)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(47.27) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.42)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(48.08) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.95 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(43.20) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(54.09) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.21)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(46.16) = -1.10, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.49)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(42.79) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.22)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(45.03) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.96)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(42.55) = 1.94, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.02)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(41.86) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.67 to 3.67)

Plot

Clinical significance